Age‐specific, population‐level pedigree of wild black bears provides insights into reproduction, paternity, and maternal effects on offspring apparent survival

Abstract Wildlife pedigrees provide insights into ecological and evolutionary processes. DNA obtained from noninvasively collected hair is often used to determine individual identities for pedigrees and other genetic analyses. However, detection rates associated with some noninvasive DNA studies can be relatively low, and genetic data do not provide information on individual birth year. Supplementing hair DNA stations with video cameras should increase the individual detection rate, assuming accurate identification of individuals via video data. Video data can also provide birth year information for individuals captured as young of the year, which can enrich population‐level pedigrees. We placed video cameras at hair stations and combined genetic and video data to reconstruct an age‐specific, population‐level pedigree of wild black bears during 2010–2020. Combining individual birth year with mother–offspring relatedness, we also estimated litter size, interlitter interval, primiparity, and fecundity. We used the Cormack‐Jolly‐Seber model in Program Mark to evaluate the effect of maternal identity on offspring apparent survival. We compared model rankings of apparent survival and parameter estimates based on combined genetic and video data with those based on only genetic data. We observed 42 mother–offspring relationships. Of these, 21 (50%) would not have been detected had we used hair DNA alone. Moreover, video data allowed for the cub and yearling age classes to be determined. Mean annual fecundity was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.56). Maternal identity influenced offspring apparent survival, where offspring of one mother experienced significantly lower apparent survival (0.39; SE = 0.15) than that of offspring of four other mothers (0.89–1.00; SE = 0.00–0.06). We video‐documented cub abandonment by the mother whose offspring experienced low apparent survival, indicating individual behaviors (e.g., maternal care) may scale up to affect population‐level parameters (e.g., cub survival). Our findings provide insights into evolutionary processes and are broadly relevant to wildlife ecology and conservation.

To reconstruct wildlife pedigrees and evaluate other processes using genetic data, blood or muscle tissue collected from captured animals is often used (Clutton-Brock & Pemberton, 2004;Firth et al., 2015;Liberg et al., 2005). However, this method can be challenging to implement for long-lived, elusive species such as large carnivores (Beier et al., 2005;Khan et al., 2020). An alternative approach is to use hair DNA collected from noninvasive hair stations, which has been successfully used to estimate large carnivore abundance (Immell & Anthony, 2008;López-Bao et al., 2018), density (Hooker et al., 2015;Loosen et al., 2018;Stenglein et al., 2010), and apparent survival (Boulanger et al., 2004;Pederson et al., 2012). Even a population-level pedigree of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) was reconstructed using primarily hair DNA (Kendall et al., 2016). Despite these successes, using hair DNA alone to estimate population-level processes can be limiting when the probability of genetic capture is low. For example, Gurney et al. (2020) placed trail cameras at American black bear (Ursus americanus) hair stations and found that 32% of bear visits resulted in a bear approaching a station, but not entering or leaving hair.
Understanding this shortcoming can be leveraged to improve genetic-based studies that use hair DNA data. For example, we previously demonstrated that video data from cameras installed at hair stations increased the probability of detecting individual black bears . We could video-capture individuals that visited hair stations but did not deposit hair, provided individuals were close enough to cameras to trigger them. This method assumes individuals can be accurately identified via video data. For wild black bears, we successfully identified individuals through meticulous scrutiny of video data (not still photos) cross-referenced with individual genetic identities determined from hair DNA concurrently collected at hair stations in view of video cameras (Ramsey et al., 2019;Reynolds-Hogland et al., 2022). Advances in automated facial recognition software (Clapham et al., 2020;Schneider et al., 2020) should make it more feasible to identify individuals using remote photography, without the need for meticulous scrutiny of video data. Thus, incorporating video cameras at hair DNA stations promises increased individual detection rates, which should help improve the accuracy of parameter estimation (e.g., occupancy, abundance, density, etc.).
In addition to low detection probabilities associated with some hair DNA studies, genetic data currently do not provide information on individual age. Such information would enrich population-level pedigrees with the incorporation of individual birth year. Integrating remote photography at hair stations can provide a noninvasive means for determining individual birth year for those animals captured as young of the year. For example, first-year black bears captured via video are easily identified as cubs.
When population-level wildlife pedigrees include information on both individual birth year and mother-offspring relatedness, reproductive parameters can also be estimated. For black bears, reproductive parameters such as fecundity, natality, litter size, interlitter interval, and primiparity have been estimated using live-capture data (Baldwin & Bender, 2009;Beecham, 1980;Costello et al., 2003;Garrison et al., 2007;Hebblewhite et al., 2003;Kasworm & Thier, 1994). In addition, Aune and Anderson (2003) used DNA from harvested bears to estimate interlitter interval, Garrison et al. (2007) used data from den visits and remote photography to determine litter size and cub survival, and Miller (1994) estimated litter size based on data collected during den visits and observations of litters after den emergence. Several bear studies have used hair DNA and the Pradel model (Pradel, 1996) to estimate recruitment rate or rate of addition (f; Boulanger et al., 2002;Boulanger et al., 2004;Pederson et al., 2012;Sawaya et al., 2012;McCall et al., 2013). To date, no study has estimated natality, fecundity, litter size, interlitter interval, or primiparity using only video and genetic data.
Assuming young offspring can be tracked through time via genetic and video data, offspring apparent survival can also be estimated using noninvasive data. When maternity is also known, it should be possible to evaluate maternal effects on offspring apparent survival. A maternal effect occurs when an offspring's phenotype is shaped by the properties of the mother, independent of the mother's genotype (Bernardo, 1996), although maternal properties K E Y W O R D S black bear, genetic data, maternal effects, pedigree, reproduction, video data

T A X O N O M Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N
Applied ecology; Conservation ecology; Demography; Evolutionary ecology; Population ecology may have a genetic basis (Ramakers et al., 2018). Both the environment and behavior may shape maternal effects as variation in maternal environment (e.g., availability of food resources) or maternal behavior (e.g., maternal care of offspring) results in variation in offspring phenotype (Mousseau & Fox, 1998). For example, maternal effects strongly influence offspring mass gain (Skibiel et al., 2009), which positively correlates with offspring survival (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982;Côté & Festa-Bianchet, 2001;Dahle et al., 2006). For bears, the effects of maternal body mass (Derocher & Stirling, 1998;Rode et al., 2020;Samson & Huot, 1995;Stringham, 1990) and maternal age or experience (Elowe & Dodge, 1989;Garrison et al., 2007;Johnson et al., 2020;Zedrosser et al., 2009) on offspring mass and offspring survival have been evaluated. Also, Zedrosser et al. (2013) assessed the effect of maternal identity on grizzly bear yearling survival. Currently, it is unknown how maternal identity may affect the survival of black bear offspring.
We used genetic data supplemented with video data to evaluate population-level processes of wild black bears living on a conservation property in western Montana, USA. Our research objectives were to (1) reconstruct a population-level pedigree with individual birth years, (2) estimate natality, litter size, interlitter interval, primiparity, and fecundity using genetic data integrated with video data, and, (3) evaluate the effects of maternal identity on offspring apparent survival using combined genetic and video data and compare the resulting model rankings and parameter estimates with those based on only genetic data.

| Video data
We used the following video camera systems to observe and detect defined as one or more video cameras aimed at a unique feature, such as a rub post, rub tree, wildlife trail, or water source. We often placed multiple video cameras at different angles at a single station to maximize individual identification. When multiple cameras captured an individual at a single station during a single event, we used video data from all cameras to identify the individual, but only one video was counted as a capture event. We placed cameras ~0.3-1.0 m off the ground to view black bear characteristics such as chest blazes, facial features (e.g., eyebrows, mustaches, etc.), genitals, and other body traits (e.g., coat color, body size, etc.). Cameras recorded for 1-min intervals at up to 60 frames per second and were operational 24 h per day. We checked all video cameras every 2-3 weeks during summers 2010-2014 and replaced camera batteries at least 4 times annually. During 2015-2020, we checked cameras and replaced camera batteries every 6 weeks during March-November, annually.

| Hair DNA
In late fall 2012, we installed 28 hair collection systems. The hair collection systems included 12 rub trees, four rub posts, and 12 hair corrals. In 2013, we added four rub trees and four rub posts. For the rub trees, we wrapped barbed wire around the trunks of 16 trees that had already been established as rub trees by bears. We installed 12 rub posts, which were ~2-meter-high railroad ties wrapped with barbed wire. We constructed hair corrals using one strand of barbed wire (Ramsey et al., 2019;Sawaya et al., 2012) and placed corrals in locations that bears frequented. We distributed the hair collection systems over 3840 ha to maximize the number of individuals sampled. All hair collection systems were placed in view of multiple video cameras. The 12 hair corrals were removed in late 2014 because they were unproductive, but the 16 rub trees and eight rub posts remained in place throughout 2020. Also, three additional rub trees and six additional rub posts were installed during the years 2014-2016.
We used a non-food scent lure at rub posts and hair corrals to attract bears. We did not use a lure (scent or food) at the 16 rub trees because bears were already using those trees for rubbing. Importantly, the initial goal of our camera-based research was to document individual bear behaviors, so video and hair stations were placed in areas that were known to be frequented by bears, rather than in a grid pattern (Kendall et al., 2016;Laufenberg et al., 2018).
We defined a hair sample as all the hairs found on one barb of the barbed wire at the moment of hair collection. We partitioned each rub tree and rub post into 12 sections and documented in which section of the rub tree or rub post each hair sample was collected. We  (Paetkau & Strobeck, 1994), G10H, G10J, G10L, G10P, G10X and UarMu59 , plus one sex identification locus, SRY (Carmichael et al., 2005). We initially genotyped all DNA samples from hair in duplicate. Samples that produced inconsistent genotypes were re-extracted and amplified three to six additional times. If a sample continually failed to produce a high-quality genotype, it was removed from further analyses. To identify potential genotyping errors such as false positives or allelic dropout, RMRS ran all resulting genotypes through two error checking programs, DROPOUT (McKelvey & Schwartz, 2005) and Micro-checker (Van Oosterhout et al., 2004). Results indicated that the final genotypes were free of errors. The probability of identity (i.e., the probability that two individuals drawn randomly from the population would have the same genotype at these loci) was 4.86 × 10 −11 . The probability of identity for siblings was 1.55 × 10 −4 . RMRS calculated both of these statistics using GenAlEx (Peakall & Smouse, 2006). color, snout and head shape, snout mustaches, snout scars and lines, snout color, bare spots and scars, temporalis and masseter size, female or male genitals, and shoulder humps (  Regular captures of individual bears allowed us to track gradual changes and temporary marks. This helped us minimize misidentification errors associated with camera data due to changes in natural marks (Yoshizaki et al., 2009).

| Identifying individuals
All video captures of cubs were collected at camera stations, except one. Bear U1 (Table 2) was not video-captured at a station but was filmed by a researcher over a period of five hours with its mother (Bear F2) during May 4-6, 2014. We feel confident that Bear U1 was the cub of Bear F2 because Bear F2 was easily identifiable owing to her unique coat pattern.
We identified video-captured cubs during their first year and we tracked cubs that remained in the study area through time. Cubs that were video-captured were always with their mothers, so we used To cross-reference video data with hair samples, we were able to match bears captured via video to their hair samples for many capture events when there was only one bear observed via video and one hair sample collected during a sampling period. When 2+ bears left hair during a sampling period, we matched many bears observed via videos to their hair samples based on which section of the rub tree or post each bear rubbed and in which section of the rub tree or post hairs were collected. If two bears rubbed in the same section of a rub tree or post, the general result was a mixed genetic sample, which did not successfully genotype. We documented sex for individual bears when genetic-based sex identifications were available, and/or when genitals or engorged nipples were visible on video captures.

| Estimating individual identification accuracy
During some years, we captured some individuals at hair stations via only video cameras. Also, video stations placed at wildlife trails or water sources did not include hair collection systems. Therefore, we estimated the individual identification accuracy rate using only video data.

| Genetic data collected during live-capture in 2020
In summer 2020, we began a pilot study for another research project that included live-capture and collaring black bears on the study site.
We collected blood and hair samples from captured bears, which we used to determine genetic identity and paternity and to test maternity determinations based on video observations. We immobilized non-cub bears using telazol (Zoetis, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA),

| Pedigree
We created a population-level pedigree with individual birth years for wild black bears in our study site. For many wild species, including black bears, parental care by the mother makes it easy to identify maternity based on observation (Städele & Vigilant, 2016). We used video observations of family units to determine maternity for individual cubs and sibling relationships when more than one cub was in a litter. For all but one mother-offspring pair, offspring were cubs at first video observation. The one exception was a mother-yearling pair that we observed before the family break-up in 2011. When genetic data were available for both mother and offspring, we also determined maternity across 10 loci using exclusion conducted by hand and subsequently using the program Cervus 3.0 using the strict 95% confidence criteria to assess those relationships (https://cervus.softw are.infor mer. com/3.0/, accessed 30 March 2021). We used the same method to determine paternity. Not all adult males provided genetic data, so we did not sample all candidate fathers. However, every male for which we had genetic data was tested for possible paternity of every genetically identified bear in our study site. In 2016, we observed the death of one cub via video data and we obtained her genetic identity based on tissue samples that we collected during the necropsy.

| Litter size, interlitter interval, primiparity, natality, and fecundity
We estimated litter size based on the earliest observations of complete litters after den emergence (Miller, 1994;Miller et al., 2003).
We estimated interlitter interval for all females that produced at least two litters during our study period. Two reproductively successful females disappeared midway through our study, so we included interlitter interval data for those two females only during the period when each was present in the study area. To estimate primiparity, we included only females of known age (i.e., females we had tracked since they were cubs). We estimated the mean natality (number of cubs/female/year) of monitored females that were ≥4 years old. We estimated the mean annual fecundity rate (m) of monitored adult females following Garrison et al. (2007 Lebreton et al., 1992) in Program Mark (White & Burnham, 1999) to estimate the annual apparent survival of offspring (the probability that an offspring individual is alive and remains on the study area and hence is available for recapture; φ) and offspring recapture probability (p). To evaluate the effect of maternal identity on offspring φ, we grouped offspring individuals into maternal identity groups. There were eight maternal identities (i.e., eight different mothers) and 40 encounter histories (i.e., 40 offspring), so it was important to minimize the total number of estimable parameters. We also evaluated models that included time-dependent and constant φ and p.
We considered the intercept-only model (φ {.} p {.}) to be the null model. We used the CJS model rather than other more complex models because the CJS model had the least number of estimable parameters (only φ and p).
Apparent survival was bounded between 0 and 1, so we used the logit link to develop models of φ. We evaluated the goodnessof-fit of the saturated model using a bootstrap approach with 1000 simulations (Franklin et al., 2004). The saturated model was defined as the model for which the number of parameters equaled the number of data points or data structures (Cooch & White, 2002). For our data, the saturated model was φ (maternal identity) p (maternal identity). We estimated the overdispersion parameter (c) and, in the case of overdispersion, we adjusted c-hat accordingly. We used Akaike's (Akaike, 1973) information criterion adjusted for sample size (QAIC c ) to rank models in terms of their ability to explain the data. Models with Δ QAIC c values <2.0 were considered to have substantial support (Burnham & Anderson, 2002). We evaluated Akaike weights for each model (Burnham & Anderson, 1998

| Individual identification accuracy
We collected 210 hair samples that successfully genotyped of the 41 bears that were included in our φ analyses.

| Genetic data from live-capture during 2020
We live-captured 13 individuals during our pilot study in 2020 and determined genetic identities for all 13 from blood or hair DNA collected during the handling process. Eight of those 13 bears had previously left hair DNA so we already knew their genetic identities.
Three live-captured bears were yearlings (with distinct traits) that we had previously observed with their mothers (who had distinct traits), but who had not previously left hair DNA. For all three, we obtained genetic identities, confirmed the mother-offspring relationships that we had estimated based on video observations, and evaluated paternity using DNA analyses. Two live-captured bears were subadult males that we had neither previously observed via video nor detected via hair DNA on our study site. Neither subadult male was the offspring of any female or male for which we had genetic identities.

| Pedigree
When constructing wild pedigrees, founders and immigrants are assumed to be unrelated and non-inbred (Pemberton, 2008;Städele & Vigilant, 2016). We evaluated this assumption by assessing all possible parent-offspring relationships among all genetically identified bears. None of the genetically identified males sired either of the two genetically identified founding females (Bears F1 and F4), no genetically identified female offspring mated with their fathers, and no genetically identified male offspring mated with genetically identified females. We did not evaluate other possible relationships (e.g., cousins). However, mammals show a tendency towards male-biased dispersal (Dobson, 1982), the evolution of which may have been driven, in part, by inbreeding avoidance (Handley & Perrin, 2007;Pusey, 1987). For black bears, most male offspring disperse before they reach reproductive age (Costello, 2010;Schwartz & Franzmann, 1992), which should have prevented or minimized inbreeding of bears in our study (but see Kendall et al., 2016).
Although we observed 94 individual bears during 2010-2020, the population-level pedigree included only individuals for whom we documented relatedness (n = 49; Figure 3). In addition to the 49 related individuals, we obtained genetic identities for eight adult males who did not sire genetically identified offspring (Figure 3, top left). We did not collect genetic data for all offspring, so it is possible that one or more of these eight adult males sired offspring in our study area.
The pedigree included 42 mother-offspring pairs. We identified 41 mother-offspring pairs via video. One mother-offspring pair was determined via only hair DNA (Figure 3, Bears F1 and F4). Both of these females were adults at the beginning of our study, so we could not be certain which was the mother and which was the daughter.
In every case where hair DNA data were available for both mother and offspring (n = 20 mother-offspring pairs), genetic analyses  (Table 3a).
Every mother-offspring pair observed via video during 2013-2020 was observed at least once at a hair station when the offspring was a cub, but cubs of the year generally did not rub or otherwise leave hair at hair stations. The two exceptions were Bears F20 and M45, both of whom frequently rubbed on rub posts when they were <1.
We observed 13 interlitter intervals for six of the eight females that bore cubs; most litters (n = 10) were produced at 2-year intervals, two litters were produced at 1-year intervals, and one litter was produced at a 4-year interval ( Table 4). The mean interlitter interval was 2.0 years (95% CI: 1.57, 2.43). For the 14 litters for which we F I G U R E 3 Age-specific, population-level pedigree of wild American black bears (Ursus americanus) on MPG Ranch in western Montana, 2010-2020. Ovals represent females, rectangles represent males, and rounded rectangles represent unknown gender. Green lines connecting green symbols represent mother-offspring relationships observed via video and confirmed by genetics via hair DNA. Brown symbols connected to green symbols by green lines represent mother-offspring relationships observed via video and confirmed by genetics via blood DNA during live-capture in 2020. Dark pink symbol connected to green symbol by green line represents mother-offspring relationship observed via video and confirmed by genetics via tissue sample of deceased cub during necropsy. Red symbols represent adult males who sired offspring, connected by red dashed lines representing father-offspring relationship determined genetically. Black symbols represent individuals who did not leave genetic data and black connecting lines represent mother-offspring relationships that were captured via video only. The orange line represents a mother-offspring relationship documented by genetics only. Blue shading around a symbol represents a bear that died when it was a cub. Orange shading around a symbol represents a collared bear that died of natural causes while it was a yearling or subadult TA B L E 4 Age of first litter, number of cubs per litter, interlitter interval, total cubs, total litters for monitored adult (≥4 years old) females, and mean annual fecundity rate of monitored adult female American black bears (Ursus americanus) on MPG Ranch during 2010-2020 Bear ID

Year born
Year knew the gender of all littermates, the sex ratio of cubs was 0.86:1 (12 M:14F).
Of the 12 adult females we monitored, eight produced cubs during the study period. Of these, two females produced cubs in 2010 and one female produced cubs in 2011, so we could not determine the age of primiparity for these three adult females. Therefore, our estimate of the age of first reproduction was based on five adult females: two first produced cubs at age 4, one first produced cubs at age 5, and two first produced cubs at age 6 (

| Using combined genetic and video data
Using combined genetic and video data, our sample size for modeling offspring φ was 40. The estimated value of c-hat was 1.17, within the range for global model fit (Anderson et al., 1994;Lebreton et al., 1992), so we adjusted for overdispersion. Two models had Δ QAIC c <2.00.
The top-ranked model included the effect of maternal identity on offspring φ and the second-ranked model was the null model (Table 6a). The

| Using only genetic data
Using only genetic data, our sample size for modeling offspring φ was 24. The estimated value of c-hat was 1.28, within the range for global model fit (Anderson et al., 1994;Lebreton et al., 1992), so we adjusted for overdispersion. One model had Δ QAIC c <2.0 (Table 7a).
The top-ranked model was the null model. The AIC c weight for the top-ranked model was 0.97, compared with 0.02 for the secondranked model. All other models ranked very low and had zero model weight. Based on the top-ranked null model, estimated φ was 0.82 (SE = 0.07) and estimated p was 0.64 (SE = 0.11; Table 7b).

TA B L E 5
The multi-cub American black bear (Ursus americanus) litters that were included in estimates of cub detection rate on MPG Ranch during 2010-2020. First observations of single cubs alone in a litter occurred either after or on the same date as the first observation of the entire litter We estimated apparent survival, which was confounded with permanent emigration. Most male black bear offspring disperse when they are 1-3 years old (Costello, 2010;Schwartz & Franzmann, 1992), so the true survival of offspring on our study site may be higher than what we report.

| DISCUSS ION
We successfully reconstructed a population-level pedigree of wild black bears with individual birth years using multiple data sources.
Importantly, 21 of the 42 mother-cub pairs that we documented would have gone undetected had we used only hair DNA (Figure 3).
In addition to increasing individual detection rates, supplemental video data at hair stations provided information about individual birth and litter year. This increased the opportunity for tracking individual mothers and their offspring over time as cubs transitioned into yearlings and, subsequently, into reproductive-aged adults (Table 2).
Moreover, video data yielded information about cub mortalities that were undetected via hair DNA. This added information increased the accuracy of estimated litter size and offspring apparent survival estimates. Combining maternity information (Figure 3) with capturerecapture data of offspring (Table 2) also allowed us to evaluate the effects of maternal identity on offspring apparent survival.

| Pedigree
Of the 13 adult males that we genetically identified, only five (39%) fathered genetically identified cubs. Costello et al. (2009) similarly found that only 33% of 56 adult male black bears in New Mexico fathered offspring, where older males were more reproductively successful than younger males. We did not know the specific ages of most adult males in our study, but the largest adult male (Bear M2) sired the most offspring, which was consistent with previous findings showing larger male black bears (Kovach & Powell, 2003) and brown bears (Craighead, Paetkau, et al., 1995;Zedrosser et al., 2007) had the highest reproductive success.
In our study, paternity roles appeared to shift through time.   (Costello et al., 2009;Rogers, 1987;Sandell, 1989), or to compete with males for mating opportunities.
Of the 16 multi-cub litters, we observed one multiple paternity; Bear M2 sired Bear F17 and Bear M5 sired Bear M23, both offspring were born to Bear F4 in 2017 ( Figure 3). Other black bear studies have reported multiple paternities at higher rates than we found; Kovach and Powell (2003) reported multiple paternities in two of seven litters (29%), Costello et al. (2009)  Of the 49 individuals for which we identified relationships and included in the pedigree, 22 (45%) did not leave hair DNA. In addition to the expected individual variability in genetic sampling (Khan et al., 2020), we found that one entire age class was almost completely unsampled by hair DNA. Of the 40 offspring first identified via video when they were cubs, only two (5%) rubbed on or otherwise left hair at hair stations when they were ≤1 year old. To a lesser degree, the yearling age class was also relatively unsampled via hair. Thirty-nine individuals were video-captured as yearlings during 2010-2020, but only 13 individuals were detected via hair DNA when they were yearlings (Table 3). Almost all offspring that left hair DNA did so when they were 2+ years old. This is important because seven of the eight offspring that died when they were cubs ( Figure 3) were never detected via hair DNA. Had we not identified those seven cubs via video, they would have been completely undetected, rendering the pedigree less complete, estimates of offspring apparent survival biased high, and estimates of litter size biased low.

| Litter size, interlitter interval, primiparity, natality, and fecundity
We found that mean litter size in our study was 1.95 cubs, comparable to that reported for black bears in Alaska (Miller, 1994), but higher than that reported for other black bear populations in the western US (Baldwin & Bender, 2009;Beecham, 1980;Costello et al., 2003;Jonkel & Cowan, 1971;Kasworm & Thier, 1994). The mean interlitter interval in our study was 2.0 years, similar to most previously reported intervals for black bears in the western US (Baldwin & Bender, 2009;Costello et al., 2003;Hebblewhite et al., 2003;Miller, 1994), but much lower than the 3.2 years reported for black bears in western Montana (Kasworm & Thier, 1994). For their calculation of interlitter interval, Kasworm and Thier (1994) excluded one litter that died, which increased the overall interval mean. When we similarly excluded two litters that died, the mean interlitter interval increased slightly to 2.18 years (95% CI: 1.78, 2.59). The mean age of first reproduction for females in our study was 5 years, the same as that reported for black bears in Alberta (Hebblewhite et al., 2003) 2003; Kasworm & Thier, 1994;Miller, 1994 Jonkel & Cowan, 1971), but lower than that reported for black bears in New Mexico (0.78; Costello et al., 2003).
Notably, we combined video data with genetic data from hair, blood, and tissue DNA to determine paternity and confirm maternity for reconstructing the pedigree, but we used only noninvasive hair DNA and video data to estimate reproductive parameters.
Therefore, cub mortality that may have occurred in the den was not incorporated into reproductive estimates. If cubs died before we were able to detect them via hair DNA or video data beginning in early spring of each year, then our estimates of mean natality, litter size, and fecundity were likely biased low and our estimates of interlitter interval and age of primiparity were likely biased high.
Our estimate of cub detection rate (via video data) was 0.93, so partial litters were observed during 7% of video-capture events of family groups. For each family group, the date of the first observation of a partial litter always occurred either after or on the same date we first observed the entire litter together ( Using only noninvasive hair DNA and video data, we estimated fecundity rate, one of the two cornerstones of population biology (Bradshaw & McMahon, 2008). The other cornerstone is survival, which is most informative when partitioned by sex and age classes (Gaillard et al., 2003). We previously used video data crossreferenced with hair DNA data to estimate the annual apparent survival of black bear yearling males, yearling females, 2+ year-old males, and 2+ year-old females in our study site over seven years . Previous bear studies have estimated annual apparent survival, rate of addition or recruitment, and population rate of change using hair DNA and the Pradel model (Boulanger et al., 2002(Boulanger et al., , 2004McCall et al., 2013;Pederson et al., 2012;Sawaya et al., 2012). We present an alternative approach to estimating reproductive parameters that integrate hair DNA data with video data, which increased our ability to detect the cub and yearling age classes (Table 3). The additional cub information made it possible for us to estimate fecundity rate, which can differ from the rate of addition or recruitment, depending on how many offspring survive and are recruited into the population.

| Maternal identity effect on offspring annual apparent survival
Variability in reproduction and survival is an evolutionary adaptation that helps increase population persistence. On our study site, offspring φ varied by maternal identity. For example, φ of Bear F2's offspring was significantly lower than φ of offspring of most other mothers (Table 6b). Notably, seven of Bear F2's nine offspring died when they were cubs and none of her female offspring were recruited into the population. In fact, only one of Bear F2's male offspring (Bear M11) may have survived to pass on genes. Thus, Bear F2's individual fitness, the expected genetic or phenotypic contribution to future generations (Stearns, 1992), was very low even though she was relatively productive in terms of bearing offspring.
Comparatively, Bear F4 also had nine cubs (Figure 3), all of whom transitioned into yearlings. Bear F4 produced six female cubs-Four were born early enough in the study period to determine whether they reached reproductive age. All four survived to reproductive age (≥ 4 years). Of those four, two had 2-cub litters and all of those cubs survived at least their first year. Bears F1 and F3 also produced female offspring (Figure 3) who subsequently produced offspring that transitioned into yearlings.
The differential φ of offspring in our study was not easily explained. Previous bear studies have shown that maternal body mass (Rode et al., 2020) and maternal experience or age (Elowe & Dodge, 1989;Garrison et al., 2007;Johnson et al., 2020;Zedrosser et al., 2009) positively correlated with cub survival. We did not document mass for all adult females in our study because most of our data were noninvasive. However, Bear F2 appeared to be one of the largest adult females that we video-captured during 2015-2020. In 2020, we live-trapped Bear F2 and she weighed 77 kg. Also, Bear F2 had a relatively large litter in 2019 (n = 3), indicating she was likely in relatively good condition during late fall 2018 (Craighead Sumner et al., 1995;Craighead, Paetkau, et al., 1995;Samson & Huot, 1995).
In addition, Bear F2 was nine years old when she lost her three cubs in 2019. Johnson et al. (2020) found that the survival of cubs of middle-aged black bear mothers was higher compared with the survival of cubs of younger or older mothers, with cub survival highest for offspring of 9-year-old mothers. Thus, it seemed unlikely that female body mass, condition, or age accounted for the variability in offspring apparent survival in our study.
We documented that Bear F2 abandoned one cub who subsequently died, but Bear F2 may have also abandoned other cubs, given seven of her nine offspring died when they were <1 year old.
Thus, we hypothesize that the variability in offspring apparent survival we found may have resulted, in part, from the differential ma-

| Integrating video data with genetic data
Integrating video data with genetic data increased the probability of detecting individuals, which helped inform the population-level pedigree, reproductive parameter estimates, and models of offspring annual apparent survival. Regarding the latter, the estimated p based on the top-ranked model using only genetic data (i.e., null model) was 0.64, which was much lower than the estimated p using combined genetic and video data (p = .96). Also, the sample size of encounter histories used to model offspring φ decreased from 40 (using combined genetic and video data) to 24 (using only genetic data). Moreover, the encounter histories included in the φ analysis using only genetic data were truncated for 21 of 24 (88%) offspring.
For example, Bear F7 (easily identified because she had a distinct chest blaze) was video-captured multiple times annually during 2013-2020. Therefore, Bear F7's annual encounter history (using combined genetic and video data) included nine captures, one for each year, 2013-2020. However, Bear F7 was genetically captured only twice during that same period. Thus, Bear F7's annual encounter history (using only genetic data) included only two captures. The smaller sample size and truncated encounter histories were likely the reason that the effect of maternal identity on offspring apparent survival was not detected when we used only genetic data. The topranked model from φ analyses using only genetic data was the null model, where all other models (including the model that included the effect of maternal identity) ranked very low and had extremely low to zero model weight. Alternatively, the top-ranked model from φ analyses using combined genetic and video data included the effect of maternal identity on offspring apparent survival.
Our study site was relatively small (61 km 2 ) and our sampling intensity was relatively high (~2.5 stations/km 2 ). Many individuals in our study were captured multiple times at multiple stations annually.
Therefore, our sampling intensity may have been excessive for estimating demographic parameters .
We do not suggest that other researchers necessarily replicate our high sampling intensity to estimate bear demography. Rather, we suggest that study designs that include hair stations may benefit by adding video cameras at hair stations to increase detection rates (e.g., bears that visit hair stations but do not leave hair can still be detected via video) and provide information on individual age class.
We previously provided detailed examples of scaling the use of hair stations supplemented with video cameras for larger study areas . In all examples, the total number of video cameras required to estimate population-level parameters for large carnivores was well below that considered unrealistic for research programs that use camera data (Gálvez et al., 2016).

| Increase in the number of bears detected
During 2013, we video-captured 20 bears and genetically identified 10 of those bears using hair DNA. By 2020, the number of bears we video-captured had more than doubled to 42, of which we genetically detected 25. The rapid increase in the number of bears that we video detected and genetically detected on our study site, and the high apparent survival rates, are reasonable for a growing bear population that is protected from hunting and other human disturbance It was not surprising that bear detections via video data were higher than bear detections via hair DNA because not all bears that visit hair stations deposit genetic data. For example, Gurney et al. (2020) reported that 32% of bears that visited hair stations did not leave hair. Also, we used primarily rub trees and rub posts to collect bear hair on our study site. Previous bear rub studies reported that males rubbed on rub trees more than females (Clapham et al., 2012;Rogers, 1987;Seryodkin, 2014;Taylor et al., 2015) and subadult males rubbed on trees less than adult males (Taylor et al., 2015). On our study site, many of the individuals that we video-detected but did not genetically detect were subadults, yearlings, and cubs.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
We are grateful to MPG Ranch for generously funding this research.
We thank Mike Sawaya who set up the hair snares, identified some of the first rub trees, and showed us DNA collection methods. We also thank T. Bertin, T. Bertin, J. Hoffmaster, and K. Paul for their help with fieldwork and pre-processing video data and K. Fields for assistance in the NGC lab with processing bear hair samples.

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.